Saturday, August 11, 2012

Paul Ryan and the Path to Victory

Paul Ryan - A Bold Choice!

Mitt Romney announced his VP pick today.  His pick is congressman Paul Ryan from Wisconsin.

This is a bold choice.  Ryan is a very bright and articulate spokesman for the conservative message.  Ryan is a national rather than regional choice.  He will play well across the board in many states and especially with those who prefer substance over style.  This will be a campaign of ideas rather than just the political horse race.  Do people want a bigger or smaller role for government in their lives?  They now have a very clear choice.

This election is not about gay marriage, Mormonism, Romney's record at Bain Capital or how much tax Romney has paid.  It will, instead, be a referendum on Obama.

Has Obama been a successful President?  Has he earned re-election to the highest office in the land or not?  Putting it another way, "Will Americans keep hitting themselves in the head with an Obama two-by-four or not?"

Ryan will eviscerate Joe Biden in the upcoming VP debate.  The contrast between these two could not be more startling.  It is ironically Ryan who shouts "Forward", while Biden is all about "Reverse".  Obama may well regret not having thrown Biden under the bus when he had a chance.

Ryan puts Wisconsin into play.  Real Clear Politics has already moved it to toss up status (see link below).  Ryan will help in PA, OH, MN, CO, IN, MI to name a few.  Note also that the announcement was made in VA -- a critical state this fall.  Note also the backdrop of the USS Wisconsin ( -- a clear pitch to military families and those who support them throughout this country.

Rubio was too young and inexperienced.  Christie has a temper.  Pawlenty was a bit boring.  Rice is tied to the past.

What is the Romney / Ryan ticket's path to victory?

No one who voted for McCain in 2008 will vote for Obama.  That gives Romney 135 electoral votes as his starting base.  Many who supported and voted for Obama in 2008 have grown dubious.  The question is simply, "How many Obama 2008 states can Romney peel away in 2012?"

"It's the economy, stupid!"  This is true in 2012 more than ever.  Obama runs on a record of economic failure in terms of employment, growth and exploding deficits.  Romney, in contrast, has a record of job creation and economic success.   Obama derides American business ("you didn't build that!") while Romney is, as Bill Clinton said, a "sterling" example of its success.

Romney must win in FL and OH in order to get to the magic 270.  Democrats will desperately attempt to play the "seniors to the wolves" on their political violin.  This will not work.  Older voters (more likely to vote) prefer Romney and distrust Obama.  Ryan, at age 42, will have some youth appeal too.  Money counts in FL and Romney now has a clear fundraising edge which will help him there.

I will go out on a limb here.  COMMANDER KELLY PREDICTS THAT ROMNEY / RYAN WILL WIN IN THE FALL!  There is now a clear path to victory.  I see a relatively close electoral count.  When I assign tossups from the Real Clear Politics electoral map I get this result...

285 for Romney

252 for Obama.

Toss-ups to Obama: NV, CO

Toss Ups to Romney: FL, OH, IN, IA, NH, VA, NC, WI

Not much room for complacency, but a significant victory nonetheless.

Here is the link to the Real Clear Politics Map where you can produce your own version...

If I am right, then NH will be very interesting to watch on election night.  If NH (his second home state) goes for Romney, then the writing will be on the wall.

Commander Kelly says, "America, take your Vitamin R!"

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

VP candidates neither win nor lose a decisive number of votes (see Palin.) Their primary function as a candidate is to raise money, and their primary function in office is to be ready to be president.

President Ryan? God help us. 42 years old, driven by the philosophy of a refugee from repressive eastern Europe whose ideas lost relevance with the passing of that era and which were never meant to be economic or social policy.

Greenspan, a devoted Randian, drove us literally over the cliff, but at least had the decency to admit his error in testimony before Congress:

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Critics, including many economists, now blame the former Fed chairman for the financial crisis that is tipping the economy into a potentially deep recession. “You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

Mr. Greenspan ... acknowledged that his belief in deregulation had been shaken.

He noted that the immense and largely unregulated business ... had gotten out of control and had added to the havoc of today’s crisis. As far back as 1994, Mr. Greenspan staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives.

“This modern risk-management paradigm held sway for decades,” he said. “The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year.”

Mr. Waxman noted that the Fed chairman had been one of the nation’s leading voices for deregulation, displaying past statements in which Mr. Greenspan had argued that government regulators were no better than markets at imposing discipline.

By 2004, a growing number of economists were warning that a speculative bubble in home prices and home construction was under way, which posed the risk of a housing bust.

Mr. Greenspan brushed aside worries about a potential bubble ...

Mr. Greenspan, along with most other banking regulators in Washington, also resisted calls for tighter regulation ...

Brilliant. Not!